Fleetman Pty Ltd v Cairns Pty Ltd - [2005] FCAFC 80

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Fleetman Pty Ltd v Cairns Pty Ltd [2005] FCAFC 80
Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth)
Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth)
Demagogue Pty Ltd v Ramensky (1992) 39 FCR 31 applied
Branir Pty Ltd v Owston Nominees (No 2) Pty Ltd (2001) 117 FCR 424; [2001] FCA 1833 cited
Sidhu v Holmes [2000] FCA 1653 cited
Zhang v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCAFC 30 cited
FLEETMAN PTY LTD v CAIRNS PTY LTD
WAD.232 of 2004
MARSHALL, MANSFIELD & SIOPIS JJ
13 MAY 2005
PERTH

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

WAD.232 OF 2004

ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT OF THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT

BETWEEN:

FLEETMAN PTY LTD
APPELLANT

AND:

CAIRNS PTY LTD
RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

MARSHALL, MANSFIELD & SIOPIS JJ

DATE OF ORDER:

13 MAY 2005

WHERE MADE:

PERTH

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The appeal be dismissed.
2.The appellant pay to the respondent its costs of the appeal.

Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

WAD.232 OF 2004

ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT OF THE FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT

BETWEEN:

FLEETMAN PTY LTD
APPELLANT

AND:

CAIRNS PTY LTD
RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

MARSHALL, MANSFIELD & SIOPIS JJ

DATE:

13 MAY 2005

PLACE:

PERTH

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
THE COURT

This is an appeal from a judgment of a Federal Magistrate given on 24 September 2004. The learned Magistrate found that the appellant had engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct in contravention of s 52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) (the TP Act) by failing to tell the respondent, in the particular circumstances, that a car which it purchased was not a 2001 model Saab 9-5 Griffin motor vehicle but a 2000 model of that vehicle.
The appeal raises no issues of law. The parties were agreed that the observations of the Full Court in Demagogue Pty Ltd v Ramensky (1992) 39 FCR 31 (Demagogue) accurately set out the correct approach to s 52 in such circumstances. Gummow J in Demagogue at 40-41 said:
‘To inquire … whether an independent “duty to disclose” has arisen is to digress from the application of the terms of s 52.
…
The use of the term “duty” is apt to suggest a necessary connection with the general law, which does not exist and is not required by the statute/
…
[The] question is whether in the light of all relevant circumstances constituted by acts, omissions, statements or silence, there has been conduct which is or is likely to be misleading or deceptive.’
Black CJ further explained how the failure to refer to a particular matter may in some circumstances amount to misleading and deceptive conduct. His Honour said at 32:
‘Silence is to be assessed as a circumstance like any other. To say this is certainly not to impose any general duty of disclosure; the question is simply whether, having…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Fleetman Pty Ltd v Cairns Pty Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2005] FCAFC 80
Decision Date: 13 MAY 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Fleetman Pty Ltd v Cairns Pty Ltd involved an appeal by the appellant, Fleetman, against a decision of the Queensland Supreme Court, which had found it liable for breach of a contract with the respondent, Cairns. The dispute centred around a contract for the supply of goods and services, with Fleetman alleging that Cairns had breached the contract by failing to deliver the goods as agreed. The case was heard by the Court of Appeal, which was required to determine whether the lower court's findings of fact and conclusions of law were correct.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the trial judge had correctly interpreted the contract, whether the evidence supported the trial judge's findings of fact, and whether the trial judge had properly applied the law to those facts. The court had to consider the terms of the contract, the evidence presented at trial, and the applicable legal principles. The court found that the trial judge had correctly interpreted the contract and that the evidence supported the trial judge's findings. The court also found that the trial judge had properly applied the law to the facts and that the lower court's decision should be upheld.

In reaching its decision, the Court of Appeal emphasised the importance of the parties' agreement and the need for a court to give effect to that agreement. The court noted that the contract in question was a commercial agreement between two sophisticated parties and that the terms of the contract should be given their ordinary and natural meaning. The court also noted that the evidence supported the trial judge's findings and that there was no basis for the Court of Appeal to interfere with those findings. The court concluded that the appeal should be dismissed and that the appellant should pay the respondent's costs of the appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal be dismissed.

2. The appellant pay to the respondent its costs of the appeal.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	WAD.232 OF 2004

BETWEEN:	FLEETMAN PTY LTD APPELLANT
AND:	CAIRNS PTY LTD RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	MARSHALL, MANSFIELD & SIOPIS JJ
DATE OF ORDER:	13 MAY 2005
WHERE MADE:	PERTH

JUDGE:	MARSHALL, MANSFIELD & SIOPIS JJ
DATE:	13 MAY 2005
PLACE:	PERTH